Total Project Snapshot Report

2011 Legislature TPS Report 55912v1

$500,000

Approved

Agency: Commerce, Community and Economic Development

Grants to Named Recipients (AS 37.05.316)

Grant Recipient: Alaska Resource Agency Federal Tax ID: 45-0709876

Project Title: Project Type: Remodel, Reconstruction and Upgrades

Alaska Resource Agency - Biomass Research &

Emission Reduction

State Funding Requested: $500,000 House District: Fairbanks Areawide (7-11)

Future Funding May Be Requested

Brief Project Description:

Pursuant to §40 CFR Part 51 and AS 46.14.020, reduce energy costs and particulate emissions of

home and commerical solid fuel heating devices through upgrade or replacement. 

Funding Plan: 

Total Project Cost: $500,000 

Funding Already Secured: ($0)

FY2012 State Funding Request: ($500,000)

Project Deficit: $0 

Funding Details:

NA

Detailed Project Description and Justification:

This appropriation is intended for biomass/biofuel energy technological advancement. Specifically, it is for the research,

development, manufacturing, and installation of pollution control devices (particularly for boilers/stoves), or improved solid

fuel heating devices, to reduce particulate matter emissions in accordance with EPA guidelines. It is also intended to assist

in the DEC education campaign related to proper use of outdoor wood boilers and woodstoves to improve device efficiency

and prevent nuisance emissions. Lastly, this grant is intended to assist with emission inspection, and training necessary for

ongoing maintenance, of boilers/stoves when devices are used as a primary or secondary heat source. 

This capital project addresses an immediate public health concern and is necessary to meet the EPA's air quality mandate

and avoid the consequence of non-compliance with the federal Clean Air Act-- which may lead to the denial of various

federal transportation funds and diversion of federal military deployments/funding. EPA designated an Interior

"non-attainment" area pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51 (Clean Air Fine Particle Implementation Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 72,

No. 79, pgs 20594-20596, 20621).

While reduced boiler/stove emissions render an attractive cost-effective alternative to other heating sources (esp. while

enduring the high cost of fuel), it is a public interest to promote proper use of solid fuel devices and provide the best

technology available to affirm the intertwined necessity for affordable heat and clean emissions.

Alaska Resource Agency spearheaded the deployment of patented pollution control devices in Alaska--devices that also

reduce residential energy consumption/costs by extending the life of boilers and maximizing BTU useage. While the

For use by Co-chair Staff Only:

Page 1

Contact Name: Julie Morris

Contact Number: 907.465.4916

10:26 AM 5/27/2011
Total Project Snapshot Report

2011 Legislature TPS Report 55912v1

research and installation of these devices positively effects the Fairbanks North Star Borough, other rural communities will

also benefit from advanced hydronic heater development and expanding the 'fire prevention' paradigm developed in Tok

(i.e. using wood bioenergy for both energy efficiency and cleaning-up "slash" wood susceptible to forest fire). 

Expenditure categories:

By DEC, municipal, and CCHRC estimates, the following quantity exists for catalyst upgrade or replacement within the

Interior non-attainment area: Approximately 30 known hydronic heaters; ~4,500 woodstoves and ~12 coal burning devices.

 Additionally, homes may benefit, in energy efficiency, from an accessory heat exchanger attachment to an existing home

heating device. Besides the cost of the devices and installation (and development of devices), funding can be used for

device & emission inspection, and training & materials to promote best operating procedures. 

Whereas the EPA mandated a strict timeline for decreasing emissions, this project can begin within one month of funding

availability (Fall 2011).

Project Timeline:

Expenditures are expected to occur within the first month of availability in summer 2011. The sequence and priority of

expenditures are outdoor wood boiler upgrades with existing NESCAUM certified/tested catalysts and development of an

indoor stove catalyst so upgrades can continue through Winter 2012. 

Entity Responsible for the Ongoing Operation and Maintenance of this Project:

Alaska Resource Agency

Grant Recipient Contact Information:

Name: W. Saller

Title: Project POC

Address: 3705 Arctic Blvd

Anchorage, Alaska 99503

Phone Number: (907)537-3241

Email: Alaska.Resource.Agency@gmail.com

Has this project been through a public review process at the local level and is it a community priority? X Yes No

For use by Co-chair Staff Only:

Page 2

Contact Name: Julie Morris

Contact Number: 907.465.4916

10:26 AM 5/27/2011
Tanana River

Chena River

Richardson Highway

Steese

Highway

Chena Hot Springs Rd

Goldstream Road

Badger Road

Parks Highway

Nordale Roa

Airport Way d

Chena

Pump

Road

Chena Ridge Road

College Road

Sheep Creek Road

Farmer's Loop Road

Murphy Dome Road

Badger Road

0 2 4 6 8 10 Miles

Fairbanks North Star Borough

EPA PM 25 NA BOUNDARY

Approved December, 2008

Prepared by Fairbanks North Star Boro

®ugh

Department of Community Planning TD

December 23, 2008

EPA PM25 NA Boundary
 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: August 30, 2010 

Contact: Greg Wilkinson, (907) 269-7285, Cell (907) 382-7032 

 gregory.wilkinson@alaska.gov

 Dawnell Smith, (907) 269-4541, dawnell.smith@alaska.gov

Study connects Fairbanks hospitalization rates to air quality 

Hospital numbers tracked over five years 

(Anchorage, AK) — A study published today by the State of Alaska Section of Epidemiology 

reveals a correlation between an increase in certain hospitalizations and an increase in the 

concentration of tiny atmospheric particles in the Fairbanks North Star Borough. 

The study, based on five years of records from Fairbanks Memorial Hospital, examined 5,718 

hospital visits for conditions related to heart disease, stroke and respiratory illness following 

periods of higher than average amounts of particulate matter smaller than 2.5 microns, known as 

PM2.5. PM2.5 are produced by combustion from car engines, power plants, and wood stoves. The 

study revealed that each 10 microgram per cubic meter increase in PM2.5 resulted in a: 

• 7 percent increased risk for a stroke-related hospital visit for people under age 65; 

• 6 percent increased risk for a stroke-related hospital visit for people 65 or older; and 

• 6 percent increased risk for a respiratory illness-related hospital visit for people under age 

65. 

“Basically, this study re-affirms what has already been demonstrated in similar studies 

performed outside of Alaska,” said Rachel Kossover, the epidemiologist who authored the study. 

“People with heart and lung problems need to take air-quality warnings seriously and follow the 

advice of local officials.” 

Air quality information for the Fairbanks North Star Borough is available by telephone at 

907-459-1312, or online at: http://www.co.fairbanks.ak.us/airquality/. 

A copy of the study is available at: http://www.epi.alaska.gov/bulletins/docs/b2010_26.pdf

A fact sheet is also available at: 

http://www.epi.alaska.gov/eh/airquality/FairbanksAirQualityStudyFactSheet.pdf

# # # 

DHSS is now on Twitter. Follow health updates at www.twitter.com/Alaska_DHSS.
20594 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

13The policy is the same as proposed, with the 

clarification regarding downwind areas discussed 

above (Section A.2.b). 

precursor for that area. This approach 

will provide for regulation of VOCs in 

locations where it is most appropriate. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that EPA wait for the results of the 

pending agricultural emissions study 

before requiring control of VOCs in 

agricultural areas. 

Response: The $15 million national 

CAFO consent agreement study 

coordinated by Purdue University will 

greatly improve ammonia and VOC 

emissions inventories and our 

understanding of the impacts of 

agricultural emissions on particle 

formation. The EPA recognizes that the 

agricultural emissions study is expected 

to provide data for future planning 

purposes, and we expect that some of 

the results of the study will not be 

available in time to be considered in the 

development of PM2.5 State 

Implementation Plans dues in April 

2008. However, if a State believes it has 

sufficient technical information to 

warrant regulation of VOC emissions in 

their 2008 implementation plans, it may 

include in its plan a demonstration to 

reverse the presumption as well as 

emission reduction measures. The EPA 

will review each submittal on a case-bycase basis. 

5. Policy for NOX

[Section II.E.2 of November 1, 2005 

proposed rule (70 FR 65999); sec. 

51.1002 in draft and final regulatory 

text.] 

a. Background 

The sources of NOX are numerous and 

widespread. The combustion of fossil 

fuel in boilers for commercial and 

industrial power generation and in 

mobile source engines each account for 

approximately 30 percent of NOX

emissions in PM2.5 nonattainment areas 

(based on 2001 emission inventory 

information). Nitrates are formed from 

the oxidation of oxides of nitrogen into 

nitric acid either during the daytime 

(reaction with OH) or during the night 

(reactions with ozone and water). Nitric 

acid continuously transfers between the 

gas and the condensed phases through 

condensation and evaporation processes 

in the atmosphere. However, unless it 

reacts with other species (such as 

ammonia, sea salt, or dust) to form a 

neutralized salt, it will volatilize and 

not be measured using standard PM2.5

measurement techniques. The formation 

of aerosol ammonium nitrate is favored 

by the availability of ammonia, low 

temperatures, and high relative 

humidity. Because ammonium nitrate is 

semivolatile and not stable in higher 

temperatures, nitrate levels are typically 

lower in the summer months and higher 

in the winter months. The resulting 

ammonium nitrate is usually in the submicrometer particle size range. 

Reactions with sea salt and dust lead to 

the formation of nitrates in coarse 

particles. Nitric acid may be dissolved 

in ambient aerosol particles. 

Based on a review of speciated 

monitoring data analyses, it is apparent 

that nitrate concentrations vary 

significantly across the country. For 

example, in some southeastern 

locations, annual average nitrate levels 

are in the range of 6 to 8 percent of total 

PM2.5 mass, whereas nitrate comprises 

40 percent or more of PM2.5 mass in 

certain California locations. Nitrate 

formation is favored by the availability 

of ammonia, low temperatures, and high 

relative humidity. It is also dependent 

upon the relative degree of nearby SO2

emissions because ammonia reacts 

preferentially with SO2 over NOX. NOX

reductions are expected to reduce PM2.5

concentrations in most areas. However, 

it has been suggested that in a limited 

number of areas, NOX control would 

result in increased PM2.5 mass by 

disrupting the ozone cycle and leading 

to increased oxidation of SO2 to form 

sulfate particles, which are heavier than 

nitrate particles. Because of the above 

factors, the proposed rule presumed that 

States must evaluate and implement 

reasonable controls on sources of NOX

in all nonattainment areas, but allowed 

for the State and EPA to develop a 

technical demonstration to reverse this 

presumption. 

b. Final Rule 

The EPA is retaining the proposed 

approach in the final rule.13 Under this 

policy, States are required to address 

NOX as a PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor and evaluate reasonable 

controls for NOX in PM2.5 attainment 

plans, unless the State and EPA make a 

finding that NOX emissions from 

sources in the State do not significantly 

contribute to PM2.5 concentrations in the 

relevant nonattainment area. This 

presumptive policy is consistent with 

other recent EPA regulations requiring 

NOX reductions which will reduce fine 

particle pollution, such as the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule and a number of rules 

targeting onroad and nonroad engine 

emissions. 

Technical demonstrations that would 

reverse the presumption should be 

developed in advance of the attainment 

demonstration and are discussed in 

section II.A.8 below. 

c. Comments and Responses 

Comment: Most commenters generally 

agreed with the proposed inclusion of 

NOX as a presumptive PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursor. 

Response: The EPA agrees with these 

commenters. 

Comment: Some commenters 

requested guidance on what would 

constitute an acceptable demonstration 

to reverse the presumption that NOX is 

a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor. 

Response: Guidance on technical 

demonstrations to reverse the 

presumptive inclusion of NOX in all 

state implementation plans is discussed 

in section II.A.8 below. 

Comment: One commenter raised 

concerns that the proposed policy for 

NOX would allow a State to find NOX

to be an insignificant contributor to an 

area’s PM2.5 nonattainment problem and 

effectively keep the State from 

controlling the area’s NOX emissions for 

other purposes, such as to address 

interstate transport under section 110 of 

the CAA. Section 110 requires SIPs to 

prohibit emissions within the State that 

would contribute significantly to 

another State’s nonattainment problem 

or interfere with another State’s 

maintenance plan. 

Response: The identification of 

precursors for regulation under this rule 

is for purposes of PM2.5 nonattainment 

and maintenance plans under Part D of 

the CAA. The PM2.5 implementation 

rule does not prevent a State from 

regulating NOX sources under any other 

Federal or State rule, including 

interstate transport rules under Section 

110. 

6. Policy for SO2

[Section II.E.2 of November 1, 2005 

proposed rule (70 FR 65999); sec. 

51.1002 in draft and final regulatory 

text.] 

a. Background 

Sulfur dioxide is emitted mostly from 

the combustion of fossil fuels in boilers 

operated by electric utilities and other 

industry. Less than 20 percent of SO2

emissions nationwide are from other 

sources, mainly other industrial 

processes such as oil refining and pulp 

and paper production. The formation of 

sulfuric acid from the oxidation of SO2

is an important process affecting most 

areas in North America. There are three 

different pathways for this 

transformation. 

First, gaseous SO2 can be oxidized by 

the hydroxyl radical (OH) to create 

sulfuric acid. This gaseous SO2

oxidation reaction occurs slowly and 

only in the daytime. Second, SO2 can 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 20621 

34See Clean School Bus USA program at http:// 

www.epa.gov/cleanschoolbus/. See also: ‘‘What You 

Should Know About Diesel Exhaust and School Bus 

Idling,’’ (June 2003, EPA420–F–03–021) at http:// 

www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/documents/f03021.pdf. 

35See EPA’s voluntary diesel retrofit program 

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/ 

overfleetowner.htm. 

36See EPA’s voluntary diesel retrofit program 

Web site at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/retrofit/ 

idling.htm. 

37See EPA’s Web site on transportation control 

measures at http://www.epa.gov/otaq/transp/ 

traqtcms.htm. 

38See EPA’s Web site on nonroad engines, 

equipment, and vehicles at http://www.epa.gov/ 

otaq/nonroad.htm. 

39Fuels adopted in SIPs must be consistent with 

the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and EPA guidance 

on SIP-approved boutique fuels at 71 FR 78192 

(December 28, 2006). 

controlling emissions of direct 

particulate matter and PM precursors. 

As discussed in section II.J.5. above, 

EPA recognizes that control technology 

guidance for certain source categories 

has not been updated for many years. 

Section 183(c) of the CAA, which 

addresses control technologies to 

address ozone nonattainment problems, 

requires EPA to ‘‘revise and update such 

documents as the Administrator 

determines necessary.’’ As new or 

updated information becomes available 

States should consider the new 

information in their RACT 

determinations. A State should consider 

the new information in any RACT 

determinations or certifications that 

have not been issued by the State as of 

the time such updated information 

becomes available. 

Stationary Source Measures 

—Stationary diesel engine retrofit, 

rebuild or replacement, with 

catalyzed particle filter 

—New or upgraded emission control 

requirements for direct PM2.5

emissions at stationary sources (e.g., 

installation or improved performance 

of control devices such as a baghouse 

or electrostatic precipitator; revised 

opacity standard; improved 

compliance monitoring methods) 

—Improved capture of particulate 

emissions to increase the amount of 

PM2.5 ducted to control devices, and 

to minimize the amount of PM2.5

emitted to the atmosphere, for 

example, through roof monitors 

—New or upgraded emission controls 

for PM2.5 precursors at stationary 

sources (e.g., SO2 controls such as wet 

or dry scrubbers, or reduced sulfur 

content in fuel; desulfurization of 

coke oven gas at coke ovens; 

improved sulfur recovery at refineries; 

increasing the recovery efficiency at 

sulfuric acid plants) 

—Energy efficiency measures to reduce 

fuel consumption and associated 

pollutant emissions (either from local 

sources or distant power providers) 

—Measures to reduce fugitive dust from 

industrial sites 

Mobile Source Measures 

—Onroad diesel engine retrofits for 

school buses,34 trucks and transit 

buses using EPA-verified technologies 

—Nonroad diesel engine retrofit, rebuild 

or replacement, with catalyzed 

particle filter 35

—Diesel idling programs for trucks, 

locomotive, and other mobile 

sources 36

—Transportation control measures 

(including those listed in section 

108(f) of the CAA as well as other 

TCMs), as well as other transportation 

demand management and 

transportation systems management 

strategies 37

—Programs to reduce emissions or 

accelerate retirement of high emitting 

vehicles, boats, and lawn and garden 

equipment 

—Emissions testing and repair/ 

maintenance programs for onroad 

vehicles 

—Emissions testing and repair/ 

maintenance programs for nonroad 

heavy-duty vehicles and equipment 38

—Programs to expand use of clean 

burning fuels 39

—Low emissions specifications for 

equipment or fuel used for large 

construction contracts, industrial 

facilities, ship yards, airports, and 

public or private vehicle fleets 

—Opacity or other emissions standards 

for ‘‘gross-emitting’’ diesel equipment 

or vessels 

Area Source Measures 

—New open burning regulations and/or 

measures to improve program 

effectiveness such as programs to 

reduce or eliminate burning of land 

clearing vegetation 

—Programs to reduce emissions from 

woodstoves and fireplaces including 

outreach programs, curtailments 

during days with expected high 

ambient levels of PM2.5, and programs 

to encourage replacement of 

woodstoves when houses are sold 

—Controls on emissions from 

charbroiling or other commercial 

cooking operations 

—Reduced solvent usage or solvent 

substitution (particularly for organic 

compounds with 7 carbon atoms or 

more, such as toluene, xylene, and 

trimethyl benzene) 

Category-Specific Guidelines on 

innovative approaches. The EPA has 

issued a number of category specific 

guidelines on approaches to taking into 

account innovative approaches to 

emissions reductions for purposes of 

SIPs. Categories currently covered by 

these guidelines include: (1) Electricsector Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy Measures; (2) Long Duration 

Switch Yard Locomotive Idling; (3) 

Long Duration Truck Idling; (4) Clean 

Diesel Combustion Technology; and (5) 

Commuter Choice Programs. See http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttn/airinnovations/ 

measure_specific.html. 

c. Comments and Responses 

Comment: Some commenters 

recommended that EPA provide new 

CTGs or other control technology review 

documents for purposes of assisting 

States to address PM2.5 and its 

precursors, because the information in 

some current documents is out-dated. 

Response: The EPA recognizes that 

issuance of new or updated CTGs 

specifically tailored for PM2.5 would be 

useful. Unfortunately, limitations on 

time and resources preclude EPA from 

developing such CTGs in advance of the 

SIP submission date. The EPA cannot 

delay the statutorily specified outer date 

for SIP submission. However, EPA 

believes that there are already many 

sources of information and guidance on 

key source categories. To the extent that 

States need to examine potential control 

measures for sources never addressed 

before in any area or other context for 

a previous NAAQS, EPA anticipates that 

it will work closely with States during 

the process of plan development and 

approval to ensure an appropriate 

approach. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

expressed concerns with references to 

the STAPPA and ALAPCO Menu of 

Options document. Some commenters 

believed that this document must be 

subject to formal review and comment 

to ensure appropriate stakeholder input. 

Response: The language in the final 

preamble has been changed to refer to 

a Web site EPA maintains that provides 

access to a variety of information 

sources regarding control technologies 

that may be useful to States to consider 

in developing their PM2.5 SIPs. These 

links include evaluations developed by 

government and nongovernment 

organizations. One such source with 

potentially useful information is the 

STAPPA and ALAPCO Menu of 

Options. However, EPA is not 

specifically endorsing any of the 

specific evaluations as being 

appropriate in any specific situation. 

Rather, we think documents such as the 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 20595 

dissolve in cloud water (or fog or rain 

water), and there it can be oxidized to 

sulfuric acid by a variety of oxidants, or 

through catalysis by transition metals 

such as manganese or iron. If ammonia 

is present and taken up by the water 

droplet, then ammonium sulfate will 

form as a precipitate in the water 

droplet. After the cloud changes and the 

droplet evaporates, the sulfuric acid or 

ammonium sulfate remains in the 

atmosphere as a particle. This aqueous 

phase production process involving 

oxidants can be very fast; in some cases 

all the available SO2 can be oxidized in 

less than an hour. Third, SO2 can be 

oxidized in reactions in the particlebound water in the aerosol particles 

themselves. This process takes place 

continuously, but only produces 

appreciable sulfate in alkaline (dust, sea 

salt) coarse particles. Oxidation of SO2

has also been observed on the surfaces 

of black carbon and metal oxide 

particles. During the last 20 years, much 

progress has been made in 

understanding the first two major 

pathways, but some important questions 

still remain about the smaller third 

pathway. Models indicate that more 

than half of the sulfuric acid in the 

eastern United States and in the overall 

atmosphere is produced in clouds. 

The sulfuric acid formed from the 

above pathways reacts readily with 

ammonia to form ammonium sulfate, 

(NH4)2SO4. If there is not enough 

ammonia present to fully neutralize the 

produced sulfuric acid (one molecule of 

sulfuric acid requires two molecules of 

ammonia), part of it exists as 

ammonium bisulfate, NH4HSO4 (one 

molecule of sulfuric acid and one 

molecule of ammonia) and the particles 

are more acidic than ammonium sulfate. 

In certain situations (in the absence of 

sufficient ammonia for neutralization), 

sulfate can exist in particles as sulfuric 

acid, H2SO4. Sulfuric acid often exists in 

the plumes of stacks where SO2, SO3, 

and water vapor are in much higher 

concentrations than in the ambient 

atmosphere, but these concentrations 

become quite small as the plume is 

cooled and diluted by mixing. 

Because sulfate is a significant 

contributor (e.g. ranging from 9 percent 

to 40 percent) to PM2.5 concentrations in 

nonattainment areas and to other air 

quality problems in all regions of the 

country, EPA proposed that States 

would be required to address sulfur 

dioxide as a PM2.5 attainment plan 

precursor in all areas. 

b. Final Rule 

The final rule includes the same 

policy for sulfur dioxide as in the 

proposal. States are required to address 

sulfur dioxide as a PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursor and evaluate SO2 for 

possible control measures in all areas. 

Sulfate is an important precursor to 

PM2.5 formation in all areas, and has a 

strong regional impact on PM2.5

concentrations. This policy is consistent 

with past EPA regulations, such as the 

CAIR, the Clean Air Visibility Rule, the 

Acid Rain rules, and the Regional Haze 

rule, that require SO2 reductions to 

address fine particle pollution and 

related air quality problems. 

Under the transportation conformity 

program, sulfur dioxide is not required 

to be addressed in transportation 

conformity determinations before a SIP 

is submitted unless either the state air 

agency or EPA regional office makes a 

finding that on-road emissions of sulfur 

dioxide are significant contributors to 

the area’s PM2.5 problem. Sulfur dioxide 

would be addressed after a PM2.5 SIP is 

submitted if the area’s SIP contains an 

adequate or approved motor vehicle 

emissions budget for sulfur dioxide. 

EPA based this decision on the de 

minimis level of sulfur dioxide 

emissions from on-road vehicles 

currently, and took into consideration 

the fact that sulfur dioxide emissions 

from on-road sources will decline in the 

future due to the implementation of 

requirements for low sulfur gasoline 

(which began in 2004) and for low 

sulfur diesel fuel (beginning in 2006). 

For more information, see the May 6, 

2005 transportation conformity rule on 

PM2.5 precursors at 70 FR 24283. 

c. Comments and Responses 

Comment: Most commenters agreed 

with the proposed policy for SO2. One 

commenter stated, ‘‘* * * requiring 

states to address sulfur dioxide in 

attainment planning in all areas is 

consistent with the science of PM2.5

formation and essential to effective 

implementation of the PM2.5 NAAQS.’’

Another commenter concluded that 

EPA’s proposal ‘‘* * * is justified based 

on the fact that SO2 has been found to 

be a significant contributor to PM2.5

nonattainment in all areas.’’

Response: The EPA agrees with these 

comments. 

Comment: Some commenters believe 

States should be able to make a 

demonstration that SO2 not be 

addressed as an attainment plan 

precursor. The commenters claim that 

the urban increment of sulfate is 

generally small, and SO2 control will 

not matter in many areas. Commenters 

also note that a large percentage of the 

SO2 emission inventory is being 

reduced and will be reduced further 

through existing programs, and that if 

attainment can be demonstrated without 

additional SO2 controls, a State should 

be allowed to make that demonstration 

in its SIP. One commenter stated that 

whether SO2 emissions from a given 

source located in a nonattainment area 

in fact contribute significantly to 

ambient concentrations of sulfate and 

PM2.5 in that nonattainment area likely 

will depend on a range of factors, 

including source type, stack height, 

location, and meteorology. The 

commenter asserted that sulfate forms 

over significant geographic distances 

from the source of the SO2 emissions 

and may not form significant 

concentrations of PM2.5 in the local 

nonattainment area. 

Response: As in the proposal, the 

final rule requires SO2 to be considered 

a PM2.5 attainment plan precursor in all 

cases. Sulfate is a significant fraction of 

PM2.5 mass in all nonattainment areas 

currently, and although large SO2

reductions are projected from electric 

generating units with the 

implementation of the CAIR program, 

sulfate is still projected to be a key 

contributor to PM2.5 concentrations in 

the future. SO2 emissions also lead to 

sulfate formation on both regional and 

local scales. The EPA agrees that the 

extent of the contribution from a 

particular source in a nonattainment 

area to PM2.5 concentrations in the area 

will depend on a number of factors, and 

that at times the reaction of SO2

emissions in the atmosphere to form 

sulfate particles may occur less rapidly 

and extend over a significant distance. 

However, at other times the conversion 

of SO2 to sulfate can occur rapidly and 

local impacts from a particular source 

can be more significant. States are 

required to develop plans to attain as 

expeditiously as practicable through the 

identification of technically and 

economically feasible control measures 

from the full range of source categories 

contributing to PM2.5 nonattainment 

areas. In developing these plans, each 

State will need to consider whether 

controls on local SO2 sources would be 

cost-effective and would be needed to 

attain expeditiously. 

7. Policy for Direct PM 

[Section II.E.2 of November 1, 2005 

proposed rule (70 FR 65999); sec. 

51.1002 in draft and final regulatory 

text.] 

a. Background 

This section addresses inorganic and 

organic forms of directly emitted PM. 

Although these direct emissions are by 

definition not precursors to PM2.5, this 

section is included to provide 

information on the full range of 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES2
20596 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 79 / Wednesday, April 25, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

components that commonly make up 

fine particulate matter. 

The main anthropogenic sources of 

inorganic (or crustal) particles are: 

entrainment by vehicular traffic on 

unpaved or paved roads; mechanical 

disturbance of soil by highway, 

commercial, and residential 

construction; and agricultural field 

operations (tilling, planting and 

harvesting). Industrial processes such as 

quarries, minerals processing, and 

agricultural crop processing can also 

emit crustal materials. While much of 

these emissions are coarse PM, the size 

distribution can have a tail of particles 

smaller than PM2.5. 

In general, coarse PM is most 

important close to the source, and not 

generally a significant contributor to 

regional scale PM problems. Even so, 

during certain high wind events, fine 

crustal PM has been shown to be 

transported over very long distances. 

Emission estimates of mechanically 

suspended crustal PM from sources 

within the U.S. are often quite high. 

However, this PM is often released very 

close to the ground, and with the 

exception of windblown dust events, 

thermal or turbulent forces sufficient to 

lift and transport these particles very far 

from their source are not usually 

present. Thus, crustal material is only a 

minor part of PM2.5 annual average 

concentrations. 

Primary carbonaceous particles are 

largely the result of incomplete 

combustion of fossil or biomass fuels. 

This incomplete combustion usually 

results in emissions of both black 

carbon and organic carbon particles. 

High molecular weight organic 

molecules (i.e., molecules with 25 or 

more carbon atoms) are either emitted as 

solid or liquid particles, or as gases that 

rapidly condense into particle form. 

These heavy organic molecules 

sometimes are referred to as volatile 

organic compounds, but because their 

characteristics are most like direct PM 

emissions, they will be considered to be 

primary emissions for the purposes of 

this regulation. Primary organic carbon 

also can be formed by condensation of 

semi-volatile compounds on the surface 

of other particles. 

The main combustion sources 

emitting carbonaceous PM2.5 are certain 

industrial processes, managed burning, 

wildland fires, open burning of waste, 

residential wood combustion, coal and 

oil-burning boilers (utility, commercial 

and industrial), and mobile sources 

(both onroad and nonroad). Certain 

organic particles also come from natural 

sources such as decomposition or 

crushing of plant detritus. Most 

combustion processes emit more organic 

particles than black carbon particles. A 

notable exception to this is diesel 

engines, which typically emit more 

black carbon particles than organic 

carbon. Because photochemistry is 

typically reduced in the cooler winter 

months for much of the country, studies 

indicate that the carbon fraction of PM 

mass in the winter months is likely 

dominated by direct PM emissions as 

opposed to secondarily formed organic 

aerosol. 

Particles from the earth’s crust may 

contain a combination of metallic 

oxides and biogenic organic matter. The 

combustion of surface debris will likely 

entrain some soil. Additionally, 

emissions from many processes and 

from the combustion of fossil fuels 

contain elements that are chemically 

similar to soil. Thus, a portion of the 

emissions from combustion activities 

may be classified as crustal in a 

compositional analysis of ambient 

PM2.5. The proposed rule required that 

States address the direct emissions of 

particulate matter in their PM2.5

attainment plans. During the comment 

period, EPA received several comments 

regarding the definition of what should 

be regulated as ‘‘direct PM2.5.’’

b. Final Rule 

This rule defines direct PM2.5

emissions as ‘‘air pollutant emissions of 

direct fine particulate matter, including 

organic carbon, elemental carbon, direct 

sulfate, direct nitrate, and miscellaneous 

inorganic material (i.e. crustal 

material).’’ Development of attainment 

plans will include direct PM2.5

emissions and specific PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursors. 

c. Comments and Responses 

Comment: A few commenters noted 

that 40 CFR 51.1000 of the proposed 

rule includes definitions for both 

‘‘direct PM2.5 emissions’’ and for ‘‘PM2.5

direct emissions.’’ They recommend 

including just one definition in the final 

rule. 

Response: The EPA acknowledges this 

oversight and has included in the final 

rule a single definition for ‘‘direct PM2.5

emissions.’’ It reads: ‘‘Direct PM2.5

emissions means solid particles emitted 

directly from an air emissions source or 

activity, or gaseous emissions or liquid 

droplets from an air emissions source or 

activity which condense to form 

particulate matter at ambient 

temperatures. Direct PM2.5 emissions 

include elemental carbon, directly 

emitted organic carbon, directly emitted 

sulfate, directly emitted nitrate, and 

other inorganic particles (including but 

not limited to crustal material, metals, 

and sea salt).’’

8. Optional Technical Demonstrations 

for NOX, VOC, and Ammonia 

[Section II.E.2 of November 1, 2005 

proposed rule (70 FR 65999); sec. 

51.1002 in draft and final regulatory 

text.] 

a. Background 

The proposed rule required States to 

evaluate and consider control strategies 

for sources of SO2 and direct PM2.5

emissions in all nonattainment areas. 

For the precursors NOX, VOC, and 

ammonia, the proposed rule included 

presumptive policies that could be 

reversed with an acceptable technical 

demonstration by the State or EPA. (The 

policy in the proposal presumptively 

required that NOX emissions must be 

addressed in all areas, and that VOC and 

ammonia emissions do not need to be 

addressed in all areas.) A number of 

commenters requested additional 

guidance on the criteria for an 

acceptable technical demonstration. 

b. Final Rule 

The final rule retains provisions for 

the State or EPA to conduct a technical 

demonstration to reverse the 

presumptive inclusion of NOX or to 

reverse the presumptive exclusions of 

ammonia and VOC as PM2.5 attainment 

plan precursors. Demonstrations to 

reverse the presumptions for ammonia, 

VOC, or NOX are to be based on the 

weight of evidence of available 

information, and any demonstration by 

the State must be approved by EPA. The 

State must demonstrate that based on 

the sum of available technical and 

scientific information, it would be 

appropriate for a nonattainment area to 

reverse the presumptive approach for a 

particular precursor. The demonstration 

should include information from 

multiple sources, including results of 

speciation data analyses, air quality 

modeling studies, chemical tracer 

studies, emission inventories, or special 

intensive measurement studies to 

evaluate specific atmospheric chemistry 

in an area. 

Because of the variation among 

nonattainment areas in terms of such 

factors as local emissions sources, 

growth patterns, topography, and 

severity of the nonattainment problem, 

EPA believes that it would not be 

appropriate to define a prescriptive set 

of analyses that must be included in all 

PM2.5 precursor technical 

demonstrations. The key criterion is that 

any technical demonstration must fairly 

represent available information. 

In developing the implementation 

plan for a nonattainment area, the State 

should use all relevant information 


cprice-sewell on PRODPC61 with RULES2
§ 49.125 Rule for limiting the emissions of particulate matter.

(a) What is the purpose of this section? This section limits the amount of particulate matter that 

may be emitted from certain air pollution sources operating within the Indian reservation to 

control ground-level concentrations of particulate matter.

(b) Who is affected by this section? This section applies to any person who owns or operates an 

air pollution source that emits, or could emit, particulate matter to the atmosphere, unless 

exempted in paragraph (c) of this section.

(c) What is exempted from this section? This section does not apply to woodwaste burners, 

furnaces and boilers used exclusively for space heating with a rated heat input capacity of less 

than 400,000 British thermal units (Btu) per hour, non-commercial smoke houses, sweat houses 

or lodges, open burning, and mobile sources.

(d) What are the particulate matter limits for air pollution sources? (1) Particulate matter 

emissions from a combustion source stack (except for wood-fired boilers) must not exceed an 

average of 0.23 grams per dry standard cubic meter (0.1 grains per dry standard cubic foot), 

corrected to seven percent oxygen, during any three-hour period.

(2) Particulate matter emissions from a wood-fired boiler stack must not exceed an average of 

0.46 grams per dry standard cubic meter (0.2 grains per dry standard cubic foot), corrected to 

seven percent oxygen, during any three-hour period.

(3) Particulate matter emissions from a process source stack, or any other stack not subject to 

paragraph (d)(1) or (d)(2) of this section, must not exceed an average of 0.23 grams per dry 

standard cubic meter (0.1 grains per dry standard cubic foot) during any three-hour period.

(e) What is the reference method for determining compliance? The reference method for 

determining compliance with the particulate matter limits is EPA Method 5. A complete 

description of this method is found in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.

(f) Definitions of terms used in this section. The following terms that are used in this section are 

defined in §49.123 General provisions: Act, air pollutant, air pollution source, ambient air, British 

thermal unit (Btu), coal, combustion source, distillate fuel oil, emission, fuel, fuel oil, gaseous 

fuel, heat input, incinerator, marine vessel, mobile sources, motor vehicle, nonroad engine, 

nonroad vehicle, open burning, particulate matter, PM10, PM2.5, process source, reference 

method, refuse, residual fuel oil, solid fuel, stack, standard conditions, stationary source, 

uncombined water, used oil, wood, wood-fired boiler, and woodwaste burner.

Title 40: Protection of Environment

§ 49.126 Rule for limiting fugitive particulate matter emissions.

(a) What is the purpose of this section? This section limits the amount of fugitive particulate 

matter that may be emitted from certain air pollution sources operating within the Indian 

reservation to control ground-level concentrations of particulate matter.
(b) Who is affected by this section? This section applies to any person who owns or operates a 

source of fugitive particulate matter emissions.

(c) What is exempted from this section? This section does not apply to open burning, 

agricultural activities, forestry and silvicultural activities, sweat houses or lodges, noncommercial smoke houses, public roads owned or maintained by any Federal, Tribal, State, or 

local government, or activities associated with single-family residences or residential buildings 

with four or fewer dwelling units.

(d) What are the requirements for sources of fugitive particulate matter emissions? (1) The 

owner or operator of any source of fugitive particulate matter emissions, including any source or 

activity engaged in materials handling or storage, construction, demolition, or any other 

operation that is or may be a source of fugitive particulate matter emissions, must take all 

reasonable precautions to prevent fugitive particulate matter emissions and must maintain and 

operate the source to minimize fugitive particulate matter emissions.

(2) Reasonable precautions include, but are not limited to the following:

(i) Use, where possible, of water or chemicals for control of dust in the demolition of buildings or 

structures, construction operations, grading of roads, or clearing of land.

(ii) Application of asphalt, oil (but not used oil), water, or other suitable chemicals on unpaved 

roads, materials stockpiles, and other surfaces that can create airborne dust.

(iii) Full or partial enclosure of materials stockpiles in cases where application of oil, water, or 

chemicals is not sufficient or appropriate to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne.

(iv) Implementation of good housekeeping practices to avoid or minimize the accumulation of 

dusty materials that have the potential to become airborne, and the prompt cleanup of spilled or 

accumulated materials.

(v) Installation and use of hoods, fans, and fabric filters to enclose and vent the handling of 

dusty materials.

(vi) Adequate containment during sandblasting or other similar operations.

(vii) Covering, at all times when in motion, open bodied trucks transporting materials likely to 

become airborne.

(viii) The prompt removal from paved streets of earth or other material that does or may become 

airborne.

(e) Are there additional requirements that must be met? (1) A person subject to this section 

must:

(i) Annually survey the air pollution source(s) during typical operating conditions and 

meteorological conditions conducive to producing fugitive dust to determine the sources of 

fugitive particulate matter emissions. For new sources or new operations, a survey must be 

conducted within 30 days after commencing operation. Document the results of the survey, 
including the date and time of the survey and identification of any sources of fugitive particulate 

matter emissions found.

(ii) If sources of fugitive particulate matter emissions are present, determine the reasonable 

precautions that will be taken to prevent fugitive particulate matter emissions.

(iii) Prepare, and update as necessary following each survey, a written plan that specifies the 

reasonable precautions that will be taken and the procedures to be followed to prevent fugitive 

particulate matter emissions, including appropriate monitoring and recordkeeping. For 

construction or demolition activities, a written plan must be prepared prior to commencing 

construction or demolition.

(iv) Implement the written plan, and maintain and operate the source to minimize fugitive 

particulate matter emissions.

(v) Maintain records for five years that document the surveys and the reasonable precautions 

that were taken to prevent fugitive particulate matter emissions.

(2) The Regional Administrator may require specific actions to prevent fugitive particulate matter 

emissions, or impose conditions to maintain and operate the air pollution source to minimize 

fugitive particulate matter emissions, in a permit to construct or a permit to operate for the 

source.

(3) Efforts to comply with this section cannot be used as a reason for not complying with other 

applicable laws and ordinances.

(f) Definitions of terms used in this section. The following terms that are used in this section are 

defined in §49.123 General provisions: Agricultural activities, air pollutant, air pollution source, 

ambient air, emission, forestry or silvicultural activities, fugitive dust, fugitive particulate matter, 

owner or operator, particulate matter, permit to construct, permit to operate, PM10, PM2.5, 

Regional Administrator, source, stack, and uncombined water.

AS 46.14.020. Classification of Stationary Sources or Emissions Units; Reporting.

(a) The department, by regulation, may classify stationary sources or emissions units that, in the 

department's determination, are likely to cause or contribute to air pollution, according to the 

levels and types of emissions and other characteristics that relate to air quality. The department 

may make a classification under this subsection applicable to the state as a whole or to a 

designated area of the state. The department shall base the classifications on consideration of 

health, economic, and social factors, sensitivity of the receiving environment, and physical 

effects on property. 

(b) The department or a local air quality control program authorized under AS 46.14.400 may 

require an owner and operator of a stationary source or emissions unit classified under this 

section to report information to the department or the authorized local program concerning 

location, size, and height of stacks or area emissions units, processes employed, fuels used, 

the nature and time periods or duration of emissions, and other information relevant to air 

quality that is available or reasonably capable of being calculated and compiled.
Project Funding / Budget

1. Four (4) wood stoves and materials necessary to customize testing facility: $112,000

2. Material costs and expenses for alpha prototypes: $55,000

3. Labor cost for design, installation and testing of alpha prototype units: $60,000

4. Material cost for six (6) 6” inside diameter beta prototypes: $39,000

5. Legal and administrative fees: $40,000

6. Travel expenses: $25,500

7. Installation in Alaska labor cost and support material: $28,500

8. Project Management fee: $86,000

Unit Cost Model

Calculated unit cost based on labor expense being equal and discounts based on supplier

discounts passed through due to higher volume of raw materials purchased. Precious metals

used in the catalyst are subject to market fluctuation. Pricing subject to change based on 

study outcome.

Description Per Unit Cost (6”) Per Unit Support and Warranty

First 6 prototypes: $1,500.00 $7/month

7-100 units: $1,350.00 $7/month

100-1,000: $1,200.00 $7/month

1,000 – 5,000: $1,000.00 $7/month
CS-100 UNITS Per Unit Cost Per Unit Support and Warranty

First 50: $5,395.00 $10/month

50-100: $4,555.00 $10/month

100-1,000: $4,034.00 $10/month

1,000 – 5,000: $2,915.00 $10/month

Unit Installation Model

Calculated unit installation cost based on being at the site. Travel to and from the site will be on 

a time and materials basis. Driving will be at the current IRS rate. Flights will be based on the 

lowest possible price booked two weeks prior to the installation. The Fairbanks/North Pole 

area will be used as the starting point.

Description Installation Per 8” section of pipe

First 4' Section*: $100.00

4' Section 2-3: $100.00 

Section 4**: $400.00

Section 5-10: $100.00 

* Provided the OWF owner has dismantled the stack this would be the minimum charge for 

installation

**The fourth section of pipe will usually require the rental of a lift to safely remove the pipe. 

The $400 price is based on a $300 daily rental fee. Delivery of the lift and variability in rental 

fees could increase this charge.

1. Travel and expenses to support training and installation: $150,000

2. Sixty (60) USB data loggers for data collection project: $36,000

3. Labor for monthly data collection and inspection of units for six (6) months: $318,000

4. Quarterly data analysis and reporting (six months): $4,000
Project Funding / Budget

Build two (2) ~ 250,000 BTU prototype OWFs based on native Alaskan wood: $20,000.

Build serviceable catalyst prototype modules: $8,000.

Experiment with design concepts to deal with moisture capture: $15,000

Expand our intelligent controller to manage the OWF: $15,000

Rental of workspace and utilities North Pole fabrication facility: $3,000

Labor cost for design, installation and testing of prototype units: $20,000

Legal and administrative fees: $1,000

Travel and lodging expenses: $12,000

Project management fee: $16,000
Report No. SR2010-06-01

2010 Fairbanks 

Home Heating Survey

prepared for:

Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation

June 21, 2010

prepared by:

Sierra Research, Inc.

1801 J Street

Sacramento, California 95811

(916) 444-6666
Report No.SR2010-06-01

2010 FAIRBANKS HOME HEATING SURVEY

prepared for:

Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation

June 21, 2010

Principal authors:

Thomas R. Carlson

Sung-Hoon Yoon

Robert G. Dulla

Sierra Research, Inc.

1801 J Street

Sacramento, CA 95811

(916) 444-6666
-i2010 FAIRBANKS HOME HEATING SURVEY

Table of Contents

Page

1. SUMMARY............................................................................................................... 1

2. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................... 12

2.1 Background...................................................................................................... 12

2.2 Project Objectives............................................................................................ 14

2.3 Organization of the Report............................................................................... 15

3. DATA HANDLING AND VALIDATION............................................................. 16

3.1 Description of As-Received Data .................................................................... 16

3.2 Quality Assurance and Validation Procedures ................................................ 19

3.3 Issues Identified and Corrected........................................................................ 21

4. SURVEY ANALYSIS............................................................................................. 24

4.1 Development of Tabulations............................................................................ 24

4.2 Survey Results ................................................................................................. 26

APPENDIX A 2010 Home Heating Survey Questionnaire

APPENDIX B 2010 Fairbanks Home Heating Survey Tabulated Responses

APPENDIX C 2010 Fairbanks Home Heating Survey Normalized Tabulations
-iiList of Figures

Figure Page

Figure 4-1 Pivot Cross-Tabulation of Q1 Responses .................................................... 24

Figure 4-2 Pivot Cross-Tabulation of Q1a Responses................................................... 25
-iiiList of Tables

Table Page

Table 1-1 2010 Survey Sampled Heating Devices Counts and Estimated Counts 

within the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area ............................................................... 4

Table 1-2 Comparison of Total Households and Survey-Sampled Households by 

ZIP Code ............................................................................................................................ 5

Table 1-3 Wood Burning, Heating Oil and Other Fuel Usage Rates and Heating 

Costs per Equipped Household from the 2010 Survey...................................................... 6

Table 1-4 Wood Burning, Heating Oil and Other Fuel Usage Rates and Heating 

Costs per Household (Any Household) from the 2010 Survey ......................................... 8

Table 1-5 Summary of Key Results from 2006, 2007 and 2010 Home Heating 

Surveys............................................................................................................................. 10

Table 2-1 Household Survey Sampling Targets by ZIP Code....................................... 13

Table 3-1 Layout of 2010 Home Heating Survey.......................................................... 17

Table 4-1 Sample Size and Multiple Use Types............................................................ 26

Table 4-2 Counts of Heating Device Types (Number of Surveyed Households 

with Device)..................................................................................................................... 27

Table 4-3 Distributions of Respondent-Estimated Winter Heating Usage 

Percentages by Device Type........................................................................................... 28

Table 4-4 Distribution of Wood-Burning Devices (Percent of Households 

Sampled) .......................................................................................................................... 28

Table 4-5 Splits Between Un-Certified and Certified Fireplace 

Inserts/Woodstoves (Percent of Households Equipped)................................................. 29

Table 4-6 Wood Burning, Heating Oil and Other Fuel Usage Rates and Heating 

Costs per Equipped Household........................................................................................ 30

Table 4-7 Extrapolated Survey Heating Device Counts to PM2.5 Nonattainment 

Area.................................................................................................................................. 32

Table 4-8 Standard Error of Proportion for Respondent-Estimated Winter 

Heating Usage Percentages by Device Type ................................................................... 33

Table 4-9 Standard Error of Proportion for Distribution of Wood-Burning 

Devices (Percent of Households Sampled)...................................................................... 34
-ivTable 4-10 Standard Error of Proportion for Un-Certified and Certified 

Stove/Insert Splits (Percent of Households Equipped).................................................... 34

Table 4-11 Wood Burning, Heating Oil and Other Fuel Usage Rates and Heating 

Costs per Household (Any Household) ........................................................................... 35

Table 4-12 Summary of Key Results from 2006, 2007 and 2010 Home Heating 

Surveys............................................................................................................................. 36
-1-

1. SUMMARY

Under Contract No. 18-5022-10 funded by the Alaska Department of Environmental 

Conservation (ADEC), Sierra Research, Inc. (Sierra) conducted a telephone-based survey 

of residential home heating devices and practices within the Fairbanks PM2.5

nonattainment area. Sierra coordinated the study and performed validation and analysis 

of the collected data. Sierra hired Hays Research Group (Hays) to randomly sample

households by ZIP code within the nonattainment area, perform the telephone survey, and 

deliver the detailed, electronically recorded survey data results to Sierra. The telephone 

survey was conducted between January 22 and February 16, 2010. A total of 300 

household responses were targeted. After review of the recorded data, a validated sample 

of 299 households remained.

Purpose – The primary purpose of this study was to collect up-to-date information on 

residential heating practices in Fairbanks during the winter season when extremely cold 

ambient temperatures cause a significant seasonal increase in fuel combustion for 

residential heating. Sierra and Hays had conducted similar ADEC-sponsored telephonebased home heating surveys in Fairbanks during the 2005-2006 and 2006-2007 winter 

seasons. The results of those earlier studies suggested that wood burning use had 

increased measurably since earlier in the decade, which was likely caused by the large 

run-up in home heating oil prices during that timeframe.*

ADEC funded this latest survey to ascertain whether this trend or level of wood use has 

continued and to gain information about other heating types and fuels, such as outdoor 

wood boilers and coal, that were not explicitly identified in the earlier 2006 and 2007 

surveys for use in preparing updated emission inventories to support development of the 

PM2.5 State Implementation Plan for Fairbanks.

Survey Content – The survey focused on identifying the types and usage practices of 

different home heating devices used in residences within the nonattainment area during 

winter months. It was organized into a hierarchical series of 71 separate questions that 

respondents were asked to answer based on the types of heating devices available and 

used within their homes. Key questions included listing the types of devices used in the 

household (including the specific type of wood-burning device if used), identifying 

whether multiple devices were used in the household, and estimating the amount of fuel 

used in each device (e.g., cords of wood or gallons of heating oil) both during winter and 

on an annual basis.

 

* Given the energy needed to heat homes in Fairbanks under extremely cold wintertime temperatures, home 

heating costs are substantial. Wood-burning devices offer a cheaper alternative to heating oil at current 

market prices.
-2-

The survey also included questions about future home heating practices, such as 

estimating the heating oil price that would trigger each respondent to stop burning wood 

and indicating whether respondents planned to change the devices currently being used 

for home heat some time within the next two years.

For the first time, the survey also asked respondents to estimate the moisture content of 

their wood and drying or seasoning periods (in months) before wood is burned. As 

described later in the report, the results of the moisture content estimates are of 

questionable value because of the small number of responses to that question and the 

difficultly for most residents to accurately estimate the moisture levels in their wood. (As 

discussed later in the report, a separate, concurrent study to this effort is being conducted 

to collect actual wood moisture measurements.)

Study Phases and Issues Encountered – The study consisted of three primary phases as 

listed and summarized below.

1. Design – The design phase included two key elements. First, a methodology 

based on U.S. Census data was applied to determine how many households to 

sample within each of the ZIP codes contained in the nonattainment area to 

produce a representative cross-section of heating practices that vary within the 

area (for example, to account for the fact that only portions of the area have 

access to steam-circulated District or ―municipal‖ heat). Second, the survey 

structure and questionnaire used in the earlier home heating surveys were redesigned to incorporate several additional questions (e.g., wood moisture content) 

and ensure these additional questions were asked at logical points during the 

survey. Sierra and Hays collaborated on this phase.

2. Survey – The second phase of the study consisted of performing the actual 

telephone survey and recording the individual household responses to each 

question into a series of well-organized electronic data files. Hays performed this 

phase.

3. Analysis – The third and final phase of the effort consisted of first performing a 

detailed set of data consistency and range checks on the survey response data 

collected and electronically recorded by Hays, and then analyzing and tabulating 

the results. Sierra performed this phase.

Two key issues arose during the course of the effort that deserve mention.

First, when performing the field consistency and validation checks on the response data, 

roughly 100 data records either had inconsistencies between interrelated data responses 

or were outside reasonable limits. Sierra prepared a detailed list of each of these 

errors/inconsistencies and transmitted it to Hays. After collective review, it was agreed 

that most of these errors/inconsistencies could be fairly easily corrected by simply editing 

specific fields in the response database. For example, in the initial section of the survey 

where the types of heating devices available in each household are recorded, a woodburning device may have been recorded with a ―No‖ value, even though subsequent 
-3-

sections of the survey reflected use of a wood-burning device Hays confirmed that cases 

like these were clear instances where the response in the initial section was incorrect (as 

corroborated by the types of data subsequently recorded for that household). In this 

example, the response in the initial section was simply changed from ―No‖ to ―Yes.‖

These types of corrective edits were made only when it was clear what should have been 

entered into the response database. For those 12 records where the intended responses 

could not be clearly inferred and corrections could thus not be made, Hays re-sampled 

―replacement‖ households.

Second, under the analysis phase of the effort Sierra also planned to perform a series of 

comparisons of key device counts and usage rates between the 2006, 2007, and 2010 

survey data to look for trends and examine usage variations in the samples. While 

integrating the similarly validated data from the 2006 and 2007 surveys, it was recalled 

that the ZIP-code-specific sampling targets (and households sampled) in the 2006 and 

2007 survey were developed using a different approach to that taken for the 2010 survey. 

To ensure proper comparisons across the survey samples, the ZIP-code tabulated results 

from these earlier surveys were re-weighted to composite totals using the same 

weightings from the 2010 survey. This was not a trivial effort, but was necessary to 

ensure the comparisons across survey samples were not biased by differing sampling 

strategies and thus potentially misleading.

Key Findings - Key results from the 2010 survey included tabulated estimates of the 

number and types of heating devices used within the PM2.5 nonattainment area, as well 

as per household usage rates for each type of device based on the survey responses.

Device Counts - First, Table 1-1 summarizes the counts of devices found in the survey 

sample along with estimates of total heating devices within the entire Fairbanks PM2.5

nonattainment area. The device types are identified by both a short code and descriptive 

name as well as indentation in the leftmost column of Table 1-1 to clarify the separate 

sub-categories reported within the wood-burning sector. As shown in the highlighted 

―Nonattainment Area‖ column, woodstoves and central oil furnaces are the most common 

heating devices, with estimated counts of 7,980 and 21,130, respectively, over the entire 

nonattainment area. Of the combined total of 8,610 free-standing woodstoves and 

fireplaces with inserts, roughly one-third (2,930) are un-certified (pre-1988) models. In 

addition, almost all of the woodstoves and fireplaces with inserts burn cord wood (8,520). 

Only 370 were estimated to burn wood pellets based on the limited number of pelletburning respondents (four) in the survey.

Fireplaces without inserts, estimated at a relatively small population of 540 according to 

Table 1-1, may nevertheless be significant contributors to the emission inventory from 

wood-burning devices. This is due to the fact that their heating efficiency is much less 

than those equipped with inserts or woodstoves. 

The estimates of appliance counts are subject to statistical uncertainty as in any survey. 

The uncertainty in the estimate depends on the total sample size and the counts observed 

by appliance type in the category, being relatively larger for the categories with a small 

number of devices. 
-4-

Table 1-1 

2010 Survey Sampled Heating Devices Counts and 

Estimated Counts within the Fairbanks PM2.5 Nonattainment Area

Heating Device Type

Number of Devices

Standard 

Error

Probable 

Range

Survey 

Sample

Nonattainment 

Area

1 - Wood-Burning Device 108a

9,240 ±810 8,400 - 10,000

1a - Fireplace without insert 6

a

540 ±210 330 - 750

1b - Fireplace with insert 7

a

630 ±230 400 - 860

1c - Woodstove 89

a

7,980 ±740 7,200 - 8,700

All Inserts & Woodstoves (1b+1c) 96 a

8,610 ±770 7,800 - 9,400

Stove/Insert, Uncertified 31 a

2,930 ±480 2,500 - 3,400

Stove/Insert, Certified 60 a

5,680 ±650 5,000 - 6,300

Stove/Insert Using Cord Wood 90 a

8,250 ±750 7,500 - 9,000

Stove/Insert Using Pellets 4

a

370 ±180 190 - 540

1d - Outdoor Wood Boiler 1

a

90 ±90 0 - 180

2 - Central Oil Furnace 247 21,130 ±920 20,200 - 22,100

3 - Portable Heater 11 940 ±280 660 - 1,220

4 - Direct Vent Heater 53 4,530 ±590 3,900 - 5,100

5 - Natural Gas Heating 16 1,370 ±340 1,000 - 1,700

6 - Coal Heat 4 340 ±170 170 - 510

7 - District Heat 7 600 ±220 370 - 820

8 - Other 22 1,880 ±390 1,500 - 2,300

All Heating Devices 468 40,040 ±1,510 38,500 - 41,600

a

Survey sample counts within the wood-burning sector do not match total due to ―unknown‖ responses.

For example, smaller size count estimates shown in Table 1-1 for devices such as outdoor 

wood boilers and coal heating devices, are likely to reflect a higher degree of uncertainty 

because of the fact that very limited amounts of these devices were found in the 299-

household survey sample.

The two rightmost columns in Table 1-1 show these computed statistical uncertainties 

reflected in the device count estimates for the entire nonattainment area. The 

uncertainties are quantified using the statistical formula for the standard error of a 

proportion,*based on the total sample size of 468 appliances and the estimated appliance 

count expressed as a percent of the total. For example, there are 247 oil furnaces in the 

survey or 52.8% of the total. The standard error of estimate for this proportion is ±2.3% 

in a survey of 468 appliances, meaning that the actual percentage of oil furnaces will fall 

 

*

See, for example, Introduction to Probability and Statistics: Principles and Applications for Engineering 

and The Computing Sciences, Milton, J.S., J.C. Arnold – Third Edition. Irwin McGraw-Hill. Boston, MA. 

1995. pp 321-323. 
-5-

within the range from 50.5% to 55.1% with 68 percent probability (the probability under 

the normal distribution curve between +1 and -1 standard deviations from the mean). 

The uncertainty in the proportion of oil furnaces translates into an uncertainty of ±920 

units in the estimated population of 21,130 oil furnaces. The probable range is the 

number of oil furnaces likely to exist within the non-attainment area with 68 percent 

probability. There will be only about 1 chance in 3 that the actual number will fall 

outside this range – being either less than 20,200 or more than 22,100. The statistical 

uncertainties were estimated in this manner at the most detailed response level of the 

survey and then aggregated up to estimate uncertainties in category totals and for the 

entire appliance population in the non-attainment area.

To simplify interpretation of the table, the estimated numbers of appliances in the nonattainment area and the associated standard errors have been rounded to the nearest 10 

units, and the probable range for the number of appliances of each type has been rounded 

to the nearest 10 or 100 units depending on the size of the category.

(As indicated with a footnote in Table 1-1, individual device counts from the survey 

sample for individual types of wood-burning devices do not sum to the total number of 

reported wood-burning devices from the survey. This is due to the fact in some 

instances, although respondents indicated the household had a wood-burning device, they 

were unsure which type it was or what its certification status was. Section 4 of the report 

explains how these unknown sub-types were handled.)

(Section 4 of the report includes a more detailed discussion of the statistical uncertainty 

reflected in the 2010 survey data.)

As explained in greater detail later in the report, the device count estimates in Table 1-1 

were developed by extrapolating the number of devices recorded in the 299-household 

survey sample to the entire nonattainment area based on household counts by ZIP code 

from the 2000 U.S. Census.

Table 1-2 summarizes the difference between the total number of households in the 

nonattainment area and the number of sampled households by ZIP code. The ratio of 

total-to-sampled households is shown in the bottom row of Table 1-2. This extrapolation 

factor was used to expand the number of home heating devices counted in the survey 

sample to the estimates for the entire nonattainment area presented earlier in Table 1-1.

Table 1-2 

Comparison of Total Households and Survey-Sampled Households by ZIP Code

Parameter

Downtown

99701

Wainwrighta

99703

North Pole

99705

Airport

99709

Steese

99712

University

99775 All

Total Households 7,164 1,822 5,329 8,774 2,389 105 25,583

Sampled Households 86 21 61 102 28 1 299

Extrapolation Factor 83.30 86.76 87.36 86.02 85.32 105.00 85.56
-6-

The differences between the number of households in the survey sample and entire 

nonattainment area listed in Table 1-2 need to be kept in mind when interpreting average 

household fuel usage rates and heating costs by device type, which are presented in the 

following two tables.

Fuel Usage and Heating Costs by Equipped Household – Table 1-3 summarizes average 

fuel use rates (the amount of fuel per season or year) and heating costs by device type for 

households equipped with or using each device/fuel from the survey sample. As reflected 

in both the individual ZIP codes and the entire sample (shown in the rightmost column 

labeled ―All‖), winter*heating device usage rates or costs were an overwhelming portion 

of annual totals. This is not surprising given the strong seasonal variations in ambient 

temperature and resultant heating demand experienced in Fairbanks.

Table 1-3 

Wood Burning, Heating Oil and Other Fuel Usage Rates and Heating Costs

per Equipped Household from the 2010 Survey

Device Type & Fuel

Usage

Period

Dntown

99701

Wnwrght

a

99703

Nth Pole

99705

Airport

99709

Steese

99712

Univ

99775 All

Stove/Insert Wood Use (cords)

Annual 3.50 3.50 5.23 3.54 3.30 n/a 3.95

Winter 3.10 3.25 4.71 3.28 2.70 n/a 3.60

Fireplace Wood Use (cords)

Annual n/a n/a 6.00 4.00 n/a n/a 5.20

Winter n/a n/a 5.67 3.00 n/a n/a 4.60

Central Oil Use (gal)

Annual 1,258 1,083 996 1,141 1,053 n/a 1,135

Winter 805 875 749 883 781 n/a 818

Portable Heater Fuel Use (gal)

Annual n/a n/a 20 2 300 n/a 107

Winter n/a n/a 20 2 300 n/a 107

Direct Vent Heater Fuel Use (gal)

Annual 700 n/a 733 403 417 n/a 493

Winter 625 n/a 633 311 417 n/a 444

Natural Gas Fuel Cost (dollars)

Annual $1,950 $900 n/a $2,717 n/a No data $2,159

Winter $1,700 $700 n/a $1,180 n/a No data $1,260

District Heat Fuel Cost (dollars)

Annual $2,800 $2,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a $2,400

Winter $1,500 $1,200 n/a n/a n/a n/a $1,350

a

Also includes Birch Hill area

n/a – Not applicable (i.e., indicates where a device was not found in the sample for a specific ZIP code)

As shown in Table 1-3, fuel usage estimates were available for most of the surveyed 

heating devices: wood-burning devices, central oil furnaces, and portable and direct-vent 

heaters. Winter fuel usage for the two most common heating devices—central oil 

furnaces and woodstoves—was 818 gallons of heating oil and 3.60 cords of wood, 

respectively.

 

*

In the 2010 survey, winter usage was defined as that from October through March.
-7-

For those heating devices such as natural gas or District heating where the amount of fuel 

is less well known, the survey respondents were asked to provide usage estimates in the 

form of heating costs for each device. The seasonal and annual natural gas and District 

heating costs presented in Table 1-3 represent averages of respondent estimates across 

those households where each device was used.

Wood-Burning Usage Patterns – On average, Table 1-3 indicates that those households 

equipped with woodstoves or fireplaces with inserts burned 3.60 cords of wood during 

the October through March winter months and 3.95 cords annually. Households using 

fireplaces without inserts (referred to in Table 1-3 and subsequent tables as simply 

―fireplaces‖) exhibited greater average wood use: 4.60 cords during winter and 5.20 

cords over the entire year. Though not shown in Table 1-3, the single household 

identified in the survey using an outdoor wood boiler indicated that they burned a total of 

six cords, all during winter.

The higher wood usage for fireplaces without inserts seen in Table 1-3 is consistent with 

the point raised earlier that they have much lower effective heating efficiency than 

fireplaces equipped with inserts or woodstoves. More wood must be burned in these ―noinsert‖ fireplaces to deliver the same amount of effective heat. As it relates to their 

contribution to emissions inventory, a key question is how are fireplaces without inserts 

used, as primary or significant heating sources, or more for ambiance/aesthetics and less 

for heating? 

In the 2010 survey sample, a total of six households were found that had no-insert 

fireplaces as a home heating device. Of these six households, all but one (83%) indicated 

that they used their fireplaces as a heating source during winter at least 40% of the time. 

In one household, the no-insert fireplace was the sole heating device; the respondent 

indicated that a total of eight cords of wood was burned during winter. In addition, all of 

these six respondents indicated they either cut their own wood, or both buy and cut their 

wood. This suggests that at least in these households, wood costs may be less of a factor 

than in other wood-burning households.

Though this is a very limited sample, usage practices of fireplaces without inserts from 

the 2010 survey suggest they were not simply used as minor heating source or simply for 

ambiance, but burned large amounts of wood and were used as major, if not primary,

household heating sources. By comparison, homes equipped with fireplace inserts or 

woodstoves used these devices 31% and 50% of the time during winter, respectively, 

based on respondent estimates from the 2010 survey.

A quick review of households containing fireplaces without inserts from the 2006 and 

2007 survey data was performed to see if similar practices were observed in those 

previous samples. In both of these samples, a different pattern was seen. These samples 

contained 16 and 20 households, respectively, with ―no-insert‖ fireplaces. In each 

sample, only a single household was identified as using its fireplace as a significant 

heating source (defined as 40% of more) during winter. Thus, the fraction of no-insert 

fireplaces used as a significant heating source based on these survey samples was 5-6%, 

much less than found in the 2010 survey. Not coincidentally, wood use in these two 
-8-

households was significant: 3-4 cords during winter. In the remaining ―occasional 

fireplace use‖ households from the 2006 and 2007 survey, average household winter 

wood use was roughly one cord.

This disparity between usage patterns of no-insert fireplace households between the 2010 

and earlier survey samples indicates that individual no-insert households exhibit 

significant wood-burning emissions, although extrapolating these disparate usage patterns 

to all no-insert households in the nonattainment area reflects a high degree of uncertainty. 

Usage practices in no-insert households clearly need to be better understood.

(Two cells Table 1-3 are listed as ―No data.‖ For the one household sampled in this ZIP 

code, the respondent did not provide natural gas heating cost estimates.)

Fuel Usage and Heating Costs by Any Household – The seasonal and annual usages and 

heating costs presented earlier in Table 1-3 are not to be confused with averages across 

all households in the sample, whether or not a household had or used a specific type of 

heating device. Averages across all households (i.e., any household), which provide a 

better basis for calculating emission inventories, are displayed in Table 1-4.

Table 1-4 

Wood Burning, Heating Oil and Other Fuel Usage Rates and Heating Costs

per Household (Any Household) from the 2010 Survey

Device Type & Fuel

Usage

Period

Dntown

99701

Wnwrght

a

99703

Nth Pole

99705

Airport

99709

Steese

99712

Univ

99775 All

Stove/Insert Wood Use (cords)

Annual 0.53 0.83 2.23 1.42 1.30 n/a 1.27

Winter 0.47 0.77 2.01 1.32 1.06 n/a 1.15

Fireplace Wood Use (cords)

Annual n/a n/a 0.30 0.12 n/a n/a 0.10

Winter n/a n/a 0.28 0.09 n/a n/a 0.09

Central Oil Use (gal)

Annual 1,141 619 833 906 940 n/a 938

Winter 730 500 626 701 697 n/a 676

Portable Heater Fuel Use (gal)

Annual n/a n/a 0.98 0.08 10.71 n/a 3.95

Winter n/a n/a 0.98 0.08 10.71 n/a 3.95

Direct Vent Heater Fuel Use (gal)

Annual 90 n/a 84 87 104 n/a 87

Winter 80 n/a 73 67 104 n/a 79

Natural Gas Fuel Cost (dollars)

Annual $113 $171 n/a $133 n/a No data $116

Winter $99 $133 n/a $58 n/a No data $67

District Heat Fuel Cost (dollars)

Annual $65 $381 n/a n/a n/a n/a $56

Winter $35 $229 n/a n/a n/a n/a $32

a

Also includes Birch Hill area

n/a – Not applicable (i.e., indicates where a device was not found in the sample for a specific ZIP code)

Average device usage rates and heating costs on this any-household basis in Table 1-4 are 

by definition, lower than corresponding values presented earlier in Table 1-3. This is 
-9-

because the denominator or number of households being averaged in Table 1-4 is always 

larger, and in many cases significantly larger, than the number of equipped households on 

which the Table 1-3 averages are based.

The difference between the two sets of averages in Tables 1-3 and 1-4 are perhaps best 

explained by example. According to Table 1-3, average winter wood use in households 

equipped with woodstoves or fireplaces with inserts was 3.60 cords. This average 

represents only those households within the survey with these wood-burning devices. As 

reported earlier in Table 1-1, the total number of woodstove or fireplace-with-insert 

households in the survey sample was 96 (7 + 89). The total amount of wood burned 

across these households is 345.6 cords (96 equipped households × 3.60 cords/household). 

The total number of households in the survey sample, irrespective of which heating 

devices they used, was 299. Thus, the average winter woodstove/insert use across all (or 

any) households in the survey sample is 1.15 cords (345.6 total cords ÷ 299 total 

households) as reported in Table 1-4.

Although less intuitive, this same averaging approach was applied to the heating cost

estimates for natural gas and District heating shown at the bottom of Table 1-4. In these 

cases, the averages across all households in the survey are much lower than the equipped 

household averages given in Table 1-3 because these heating devices were less common.

Comparisons Across Surveys – Finally, Table 1-5 presents a comparison of key 

tabulations from each of the three separate Fairbanks Home Heating surveys: 2006, 

2007, and the current 2010 survey. As explained earlier, the tabulations from the earlier 

surveys were re-weighted by ZIP code using the same weightings on which the 2010 

survey was based for consistency when compared with the 2010 results. Highlighted cells 

in Table 1-5 identify key metrics where significant changes were observed in the 2010 

survey compared to the earlier surveys. 

First, the overall percentage of wintertime wood-burning device use increased to over 

17% in the 2010 sample (over usage fractions of 10-12% in the earlier surveys). In 

addition, the distribution of wood-burning devices used has changed: no-insert fireplace 

use is lower in the 2010 sample (5.8%), while woodstove use is higher (86.4%). Within 

the populations of woodstoves and fireplaces with inserts in the survey samples, the 

fraction of un-certified stoves/inserts has dropped markedly from 52.4% in 2006 to 

34.1% in 2010. On the other hand, winter wood usage (i.e., the amount burned per woodburning household) has increased noticeably for both stoves/inserts and no-insert 

fireplaces. (As discussed earlier, the variations observed for the no-insert fireplaces may 

be related to small sample sizes.)

Beyond the wood-burning sector, Table 1-5 also highlights a clear reduction in the 

wintertime central oil use. Although the usage fraction for central oil furnaces (the 

respondent-estimated fraction of use within the household) had remained fairly steady, 

between 63.9% and 68.0% as reported in the upper section of Table 1-5, usage amounts 

(gallons of fuel oil) per household dropped nearly 20% in the 2010 sample (818 gallons) 

compared to the earlier surveys. 
-10-

Table 1-5 

Summary of Key Results from 2006, 2007 and 2010 Home Heating Surveys

Statistic Parameter

Survey Results

2006a2007 a2010

Average Winter Device Use by Type 

(% of Household Use)

Wood 10.1% 11.8% 17.2%

Central Oil 68.0% 63.6% 67.3%

Portable 0.7% 0.5% 0.2%

Direct Vent 8.6% 7.4% 8.2%

Natural Gas 2.6% 2.3% 4.5%

Coal Heat n/a n/a 0.5%

District Heat 2.8% 1.1% 1.3%

Other 7.2% 13.4% 0.7%

Wood Burning Type 

(% of Wood-Burning Devices)

Fireplace 13.0% 17.5% 5.8%

Fireplace + Insert 8.3% 5.6% 6.8%

Woodstove 78.8% 76.9% 86.4%

Wood Boiler n/a n/a 1.0%

Wood Stove/Insert Cert Type 

(% of Woodstoves/Inserts)

<1988 (Un-Certified) 52.4% 46.8% 34.1%

≥1988 (Certified) 47.6% 53.2% 65.9%

Stove/Insert Wood Use (cords), Winter Winter Season 2.87 2.85 3.60

Fireplace Wood Use (cords), Winter Winter Season 0.76 0.74 4.60

Central Oil Use (gallons), Winter Winter Season 1,099 1,011 818

Portable Heater Fuel Use (gallons), Winter Winter Season 91.7 152.7 107.3

Direct Vent Heater Fuel Use (gallons), Winter Winter Season 296 472 444

Natural Gas Heating Fuel Cost (dollars), Winter Winter Season $553 $947 $1,260

Municipal Heating Fuel Cost (dollars), Winter Winter Season n/a n/a $1,350

a Winter usage in these surveys encompassed October-May; 2010 winter usage spanned October-March.

To understand the possible causes of this decrease in central oil usage, an analysis of 

wintertime Fairbanks heating degree days* was conducted. Comparisons of degree days 

during the same six-month winter periods of each survey indicated that ambient 

temperature-based heating demand in 2010 was roughly 94% of the winter average of 

2006 and 2007. Therefore, most of the 20% decrease in central oil usage seen in the 

2010 survey was not the result of year-to-year ambient temperature variations. The other 

likely explanations for this decrease are either: 1 ) participation in the recently-initiated 

Alaska Home Energy Rebate Program†; or 2) a shift to other devices/fuels resulting from 

market prices of heating oil. (An analysis of the effects of participation in the Home 

Energy Rebate Program was beyond the scope of this study.)

 

* Calculated 65°F heating degree days at Fairbanks International Airport (PAFA), www.degreedays.net

† Alaska Housing Finance Corporation, http://www.akrebate.com/rebate_about.aspx
-11-

A significant increase in wintertime natural gas heating costs per equipped household is 

also highlighted in Table 1-5. Costs per household have more than doubled from $553 in 

2006 to $1,260 in 2010. Whether this reflects a greater usage of natural gas heating is 

unclear; no analysis of changes in residential natural gas heating prices over this fouryear period was performed. However, as also reported in Table 1-5, respondentestimated usage fraction for natural gas heating increased from 2.6% in 2006 to 4.5% in 

2010.

As footnoted in Table 1-5, one element that was not fully consistent across the three 

surveys was the definition of winter season activity. For the 2006 and 2007 surveys,

winter was defined as October through May; as noted earlier, the 2010 survey defined 

winter as October through March. Rather than try to adjust*the results data from the 

earlier surveys downward to reflect the shorter winter period in the 2010 survey, this 

difference is simply noted. Thus, the higher winter season usage seen in the 2010 survey 

would be further magnified if a seasonal adjustment were made.

###

 

* Given the strong relationship between ambient temperature and residential heating demand/activity, it is 

not appropriate to simply adjust the 2006 and 2007 usage data by the difference in winter periods across the 

three surveys (i.e., by a factor of 6/8 months.) because historical April-May ambient temperatures tend to 

be much warmer than the average from October-March.
-12-

2. INTRODUCTION

This introduction provides a review of the background behind the effort, the project 

objectives, and the organization of the remainder of the report.

2.1 Background

Fairbanks has been collecting measurements of fine particulate (PM2.5) concentrations at 

the State Office Building in the downtown area for over a decade. Those measurements 

show a distinct seasonal pattern of elevated concentrations during both summer and 

winter months. Large, uncontrolled wild fires are the principal cause of the elevated 

summer values. The causes of the elevated winter values are more complex and include 

severe meteorology (i.e., low wind speed, low mixing depth heights, and arctic winter 

temperatures) that limit dispersion potential, combustion of fuel for space heating and 

power production as well as poorly understood atmospheric chemistry that promotes 

secondary particulate formation. Collectively, these factors have caused the Borough to 

routinely exceed the more stringent 35 μg/m3 National Ambient Air Quality Standard 

(NAAQS) for PM2.5 that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) established in 

2006, and resulted in Fairbanks being designated as a PM2.5 nonattainment area in 

December 2009.

ADEC has sponsored this study to collect information on the types and usage rates of 

residential heating equipment and fuels in Fairbanks. The specific heating devices/fuels

that were surveyed are listed below.

 Wood-burning devices (fireplaces, fireplaces with inserts and woodstoves)

 Central oil furnaces

 Portable fuel oil/kerosene devices

 Direct-vent type heaters such as Toyo or Monitor brands

 Natural gas heating

 Coal heating

 District*heating (from circulated steam)

The study method was a telephone-based survey conducted by Hays Research Group 

(Hays) over a sample of roughly 300 residential households in Fairbanks. The survey 

 

* The household survey form and electronic response database use the term ―Municipal Heating‖ to refer to 

district heating provided within portions of the Fairbanks area from steam circulated in underground pipes. 

For this point in the report forward, district and municipal heating refer to this same type of steam heating.
APPENDIX C

2010 Fairbanks Home Heating Survey Normalized Tabulations
C-1

99701 99703 99705 99709 99712 99775 All

Parameter Stat Type Downtown Wainwright North Pole Airport Steese University All

Survey Sample # Obs 86 21 61 102 28 1 299

(Self-weighted by ZIP households) % Obs 28.8% 7.0% 20.4% 34.1% 9.4% 0.3% 100.0%

Multiple Type Heating UseFactor (1.0=Single) 1.40 1.62 1.59 1.68 1.61 1.00 1.57

Average Use by Type, Winter (October-March) % Obs Wood 6.8% 9.8% 28.6% 20.1% 19.5% 0.0% 17.2%

% Obs Central Oil 80.8% 44.3% 63.2% 63.2% 69.6% 0.0% 67.3%

% Obs Portable 0.1% 2.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%

% Obs Direct Vent 7.0% 17.4% 3.5% 9.7% 10.5% 0.0% 8.2%

% Obs Natural Gas 4.7% 14.3% 1.6% 4.4% 0.0% 100.0% 4.5%

% Obs Coal Heat 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 1.5% 0.0% 0.0% 0.5%

% Obs Muni. Heat 0.6% 11.7% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3%

% Obs Other 0.1% 0.2% 1.2% 1.1% 0.4% 0.0% 0.7%

All 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Wood Burning Type (Q1a) # Obs Fireplace 0 0 3 3 0 0 6

# Obs FP+Insert 1 1 1 3 1 0 7

# Obs Stove 12 4 25 38 10 0 89

# Obs Wood Boiler 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

# Obs Unknown 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

# Obs N/A 73 16 32 56 17 1 195

# Obs All 86 21 61 102 28 1 299

# Obs All With 13 5 29 45 11 0 103

% Obs Fireplace 0.0% 0.0% 10.3% 6.7% 0.0% 0.0% 5.8%

% Obs FP+Insert 7.7% 20.0% 3.4% 6.7% 9.1% 0.0% 6.8%

% Obs Stove 92.3% 80.0% 86.2% 84.4% 90.9% 0.0% 86.4%

% Obs Wood Boiler 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1%

% Obs All With 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Wood Stove/Insert Installation Year / Cert Type (Q10a) # Obs <1988 (Un-Certified) 2 3 12 13 1 0 31

# Obs >=1988 (Certified) 10 2 14 25 9 0 60

# Obs Unknown 1 0 0 3 1 0 5

# Obs N/A 73 16 35 61 17 1 203

# Obs All 86 21 61 102 28 1 299

# Obs All With 12 5 26 38 10 0 91

% Obs <1988 (Un-Certified) 16.7% 60.0% 46.2% 34.2% 10.0% 0.0% 34.1%

% Obs >=1988 (Certified) 83.3% 40.0% 53.8% 65.8% 90.0% 0.0% 65.9%

% Obs All With 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Wood Stove/Insert Fuel Type (Q12) # Obs Pellets 1 0 0 2 1 0 4

# Obs Cord Wood 11 5 26 38 10 0 90

# Obs Unknown 1 0 0 1 0 0 2

# Obs N/A 73 16 35 61 17 1 203

# Obs All 86 21 61 102 28 1 299

# Obs All With 12 5 26 40 11 0 94

% Obs Pellets 8.3% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 9.1% 0.0% 4.3%

% Obs Cord Wood 91.7% 100.0% 100.0% 95.0% 90.9% 0.0% 95.7%

% Obs All With 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Wood Stove/Insert Daily Use Profile, Winter (Q13) # Obs Daytime 0 1 0 4 0 0 5

# Obs Evening 0 1 2 3 0 0 6

# Obs Day&Eve 4 1 16 20 7 0 48

# Obs Weekend 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

# Obs Eve&WkEnd 2 2 4 6 1 0 15

# Obs Occasional 1 0 3 5 2 0 11

# Obs Not Using 2 0 0 0 0 0 2

# Obs Unknown 0 0 1 0 0 0 1

# Obs N/A 1 0 0 0 0 0 1

# Obs All 75 16 35 64 18 1 209

# Obs All With 10 5 25 38 10 0 88

% Obs Daytime 0.0% 20.0% 0.0% 10.5% 0.0% 0.0% 5.7%

% Obs Evening 0.0% 20.0% 8.0% 7.9% 0.0% 0.0% 6.8%

% Obs Day&Eve 40.0% 20.0% 64.0% 52.6% 70.0% 0.0% 54.5%

% Obs Weekend 10.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 1.1%

% Obs Eve&WkEnd 20.0% 40.0% 16.0% 15.8% 10.0% 0.0% 17.0%

% Obs Occasional 10.0% 0.0% 12.0% 13.2% 20.0% 0.0% 12.5%

% Obs Not Using 20.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 2.3%

% Obs All With 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Wood Stove/Insert Wood Source (Q14) # Obs Cut Own-multi response 5 2 6 4 0 0 17

# Obs Buy 6 2 9 17 0 0 34

# Obs Cut Own 5 3 17 21 10 0 56

# Obs Unknown 75 16 35 64 18 1 209

# Obs N/A 86 21 61 102 28 1 299

# Obs All 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

# Obs All With 11 5 26 38 10 0 90

% Obs Buy 54.5% 40.0% 34.6% 44.7% 0.0% 0.0% 37.8%

% Obs Cut Own 90.9% 100.0% 88.5% 65.8% 100.0% 0.0% 81.1%

% Obs All With 145.5% 140.0% 123.1% 110.5% 100.0% 0.0% 118.9%

Wood Stove/Insert Cutting Permit Obtained (Q15) # Obs Yes 5 2 11 8 4 0 30

# Obs No 5 3 12 16 6 0 42

# Obs Unknown 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

# Obs N/A 76 16 38 77 18 1 226

# Obs All 86 21 61 102 28 1 299

# Obs All With 10 5 23 24 10 0 72

% Obs Yes 50.0% 40.0% 47.8% 33.3% 40.0% 0.0% 41.7%

% Obs No 50.0% 60.0% 52.2% 66.7% 60.0% 0.0% 58.3%

% Obs All With 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

TABULATIONS OF FAIRBANKS 2010 HOME HEATING SURVEY
C-2

99701 99703 99705 99709 99712 99775 All

Parameter Stat Type Downtown Wainwright North Pole Airport Steese University All

Wood Fireplace Daily Use Profile, Winter (Q24) # Obs Daytime

# Obs Evening

# Obs Day&Eve 0 0 3 1 0 0 4

# Obs Weekend

# Obs Eve&WkEnd 0 0 0 2 0 0 2

# Obs Occasional

# Obs Not Using

# Obs Unknown

# Obs N/A 86 21 58 99 28 1 293

# Obs All 86 21 61 102 28 1 299

# Obs All With 0 0 3 3 0 0 6

% Obs Daytime 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

% Obs Evening 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

% Obs Day&Eve 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 33.3% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7%

% Obs Weekend 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

% Obs Eve&WkEnd 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 33.3%

% Obs Occasional 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

% Obs Not Using 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

% Obs All With 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Wood Fireplace Wood Source (Q25) # Obs Buy 0 0 1 1 0 0 2

# Obs Cut Own 0 0 2 1 0 0 3

# Obs Unknown 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

# Obs N/A 86 21 58 99 28 1 293

# Obs All 86 21 61 102 28 1 299

# Obs All With 0 0 3 2 0 0 5

% Obs Buy 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0%

% Obs Cut Own 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0%

% Obs All With 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Wood Fireplace Cutting Permit Obtained (Q26) # Obs Yes 0 0 1 2 0 0 3

# Obs No 0 0 2 0 0 0 2

# Obs Unknown

# Obs N/A 86 21 58 100 28 1 294

# Obs All 86 21 61 102 28 1 299

# Obs All With 0 0 3 2 0 0 5

% Obs Yes 0.0% 0.0% 33.3% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 60.0%

% Obs No 0.0% 0.0% 66.7% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 40.0%

% Obs All With 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Stove/Insert Wood Use (cords), Annual (Q18) Average Per Equipped Household 3.50 3.50 5.23 3.54 3.30 #DIV/0! 3.95

Stove/Insert Wood Use (cords), Winter (Q19) Average Per Equipped Household 3.10 3.25 4.71 3.28 2.70 #DIV/0! 3.60

Fireplace Wood Use (cords), Annual (Q29) Average Per Equipped Household #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 6.00 4.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 5.20

Fireplace Wood Use (cords), Winter (Q30) Average Per Equipped Household #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 5.67 3.00 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 4.60

Central Oil Use (gallons), Annual (Q42) Average Per Equipped Household 1,258 1,083 996 1,141 1,053 #DIV/0! 1,135

Central Oil Use (gallons), Winter (Q43) Average Per Equipped Household 805 875 749 883 781 #DIV/0! 818

Central Oil, Portable Heater Daily Use Profile, Winter (Q50) # Obs Daytime 2 0 2 3 0 0 7

# Obs Evening 0 2 0 1 0 0 3

# Obs Day&Eve 70 9 39 69 16 0 203

# Obs Weekend 0 0 1 3 1 0 5

# Obs Eve&WkEnd 0 1 6 2 3 0 12

# Obs Occasional 4 1 2 3 2 0 12

# Obs Not Using 1 0 0 2 2 0 5

# Obs Unknown 0 0 1 1 1 0 3

# Obs N/A 9 8 10 18 3 1 49

# Obs All 86 21 61 102 28 1 299

# Obs All With 77 13 50 83 24 0 247

% Obs Daytime 2.6% 0.0% 4.0% 3.6% 0.0% 0.0% 2.8%

% Obs Evening 0.0% 15.4% 0.0% 1.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.2%

% Obs Day&Eve 90.9% 69.2% 78.0% 83.1% 66.7% 0.0% 82.2%

% Obs Weekend 0.0% 0.0% 2.0% 3.6% 4.2% 0.0% 2.0%

% Obs Eve&WkEnd 0.0% 7.7% 12.0% 2.4% 12.5% 0.0% 4.9%

% Obs Occasional 5.2% 7.7% 4.0% 3.6% 8.3% 0.0% 4.9%

% Obs Not Using 1.3% 0.0% 0.0% 2.4% 8.3% 0.0% 2.0%

% Obs All With 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Portable Heater Fuel Type (Q45 & Q46) # Obs Fuel Oil - Yes 1 1 2 1 1 0 6

# Obs Fuel Oil - No 1 0 1 3 0 0 5

# Obs Kerosene - Yes 1 1 2 1 0 0 5

# Obs Kerosene - No 1 0 1 3 1 0 6

# Obs Unknown 0 0 0 1 0 0 1

# Obs N/A 84 20 58 97 27 1 287

# Obs All 86 21 61 102 28 1 299

# Obs All With 2 1 3 4 1 0 11

% Obs Fuel Oil 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 100.0% 0.0% 54.5%

% Obs Kerosene 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 50.0% 0.0% 0.0% 45.5%

% Obs All With 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Portable Heater Fuel Use (gallons), Annual (Q47) Average Per Equipped Household #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 20 2 300 #DIV/0! 107

Portable Heater Fuel Use (gallons), Winter (Q48) Average Per Equipped Household #DIV/0! #DIV/0! 20 2 300 #DIV/0! 107

Direct Vent Heater Fuel Use (gallons), Annual (Q51) Average Per Equipped Household 700 #DIV/0! 733 403 417 #DIV/0! 493

Direct Vent Heater Fuel Use (gallons), Winter (Q52) Average Per Equipped Household 625 #DIV/0! 633 311 417 #DIV/0! 444

Natural Gas Heating Fuel Cost (dollars), Annual (Q55) Average Per Equipped Household $1,950 $900 n/a $2,717 n/a n/a $2,159

Natural Gas Heating Fuel Cost (dollars), Winter (Q56) Average Per Equipped Household $1,700 $700 #DIV/0! $1,180 #DIV/0! $0 $1,260

Municipal Heating Fuel Cost (dollars), Annual (Q61) Average Per Equipped Household $2,800 $2,000 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $2,400

Municipal Heating Fuel Cost (dollars), Winter (Q62) Average Per Equipped Household $1,500 $1,200 #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! #DIV/0! $1,350

TABULATIONS OF FAIRBANKS 2010 HOME HEATING SURVEY
C-3

99701 99703 99705 99709 99712 99775 All

Parameter Stat Type Downtown Wainwright North Pole Airport Steese University All

Planned New or Different Heating within 2 Yrs (Q63) # Obs Yes 16 1 10 13 10 0 50

# Obs No 69 18 49 87 18 1 242

# Obs Unknown 1 2 2 2 0 0 7

# Obs All 86 21 61 102 28 1 299

# Obs All With 85 19 59 100 28 1 292

% Obs Yes 18.8% 5.3% 16.9% 13.0% 35.7% 0.0% 17.1%

% Obs No 81.2% 94.7% 83.1% 87.0% 64.3% 100.0% 82.9%

% Obs All With 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%

Burned More Wood Last Winter (Q65) # Obs Yes 6 3 12 14 3 0 38

# Obs No 5 2 16 26 7 0 56

# Obs Unknown 0 0 1 1 0 0 2

# Obs N/A 75 16 32 61 18 1 203

# Obs All 86 21 61 102 28 1 299

# Obs All With 11 5 28 40 10 0 94

% Obs Yes 54.5% 60.0% 42.9% 35.0% 30.0% 0.0% 40.4%

% Obs No 45.5% 40.0% 57.1% 65.0% 70.0% 0.0% 59.6%

% Obs All With 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0%

Fuel Price to Stop Using Wood, $/gal (Q66) Mean Per Equipped Household $1.46 $1.95 $1.74 $1.78 $2.00 $0.00 $1.74

Minimum Per Equipped Household $0.50 $1.95 $0.85 $0.00 $1.00 $0.00 $0.00

Maximum Per Equipped Household $2.00 $1.95 $3.51 $5.00 $3.00 $0.00 $5.00

Std Dev Per Equipped Household $0.61 #DIV/0! $0.79 $1.27 $1.00 $0.00 $1.04

Wood Stove/Insert Seasoning (months) (Q16) Average Month 13.0 15.0 15.3 16.5 8.3 #DIV/0! 14.4

Wood Stove/Insert Moisture Content (%) (Q17) % Obs 1.00% #DIV/0! 7.25% 8.33% 11.25% #DIV/0! 7.88%

TABULATIONS OF FAIRBANKS 2010 HOME HEATING SURVEY